From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-02-25 07:02:24 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 10:02:15 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: In-Out Parameters for functions
References: <4020C947.81A6D703@0.0> <1075907239.138068@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <402232E9.3EE15B4B@0.0> <1075987360.225622@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <40236C0B.E988E003@0.0> <xay_b.429$ax2.177@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
 <pan.2004.02.24.01.44.30.311621@email.ro>
 <1077634311.254581@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <pan.2004.02.24.23.23.33.578111@email.ro>
 <mailman.20.1077669870.327.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <pan.2004.02.25.09.01.17.858502@email.ro>
 <1077718871.47635@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <54cp3095jmv8s17h63d4bjdus0tec7l7pt@jellix.jlfencey.com>
In-Reply-To: <54cp3095jmv8s17h63d4bjdus0tec7l7pt@jellix.jlfencey.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1077721343.481619@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1077721343  6522 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5791
Date: 2004-02-25T10:02:15-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
> The philosophy that the semantics of a program should be the same, no
> matter if you choose to write "f := a + b;" or "f = b + a;" instead.

But Ada does not have that philosophy, so that cannot be the reason
to maintain the feature. When "+" is a user-defined subprogram, its
operands are always passed in the order written; a + b is always
invoked as "+"(a, b) and never as "+"(b, a).

> BTW, AFAICS and JFTR: C and C++ don't specify evaluation either

Correct. I've made the same arguments in the C++ newsgroups :-)

> (I don't know if Java does fix it)

It does.

>  The only difference is that unfortunately all Boolean
> operations happen to be sequence points here.

"Unfortunately"? Built-in && is the equivalent of Ada "and then"
and || is the equivalent of "or else". What exactly makes that
unfortunate?